 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Made in hgpovray so far.
Might it make happy the original requester of such changes.
The uv-mapping might have to be redesigned as distance is transforming a nearly
spherical blob into a long shaft.
Or it might just stay like that.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ovus.png' (131 KB)
Preview of image 'ovus.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2016-07-02 10:27 AM (-4), Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Made in hgpovray so far.
>
> Might it make happy the original requester of such changes.
>
> The uv-mapping might have to be redesigned as distance is transforming a nearly
spherical blob into a long shaft.
> Or it might just stay like that.
>
Looks like there are numerical artifacts near the top of the far right
object.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 02/07/2016 18:00, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
> On 2016-07-02 10:27 AM (-4), Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Made in hgpovray so far.
>>
>> Might it make happy the original requester of such changes.
>>
>> The uv-mapping might have to be redesigned as distance is transforming a nearly
spherical blob into a long shaft.
>> Or it might just stay like that.
>>
>
> Looks like there are numerical artifacts near the top of the far right object.
>
Please enlighten me on that part of the picture (same picture rendered at 3200x1600,
cut in gimp to keep only the far right object)
sturm is needed, but when present, I cannot see a problem.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'part.png' (162 KB)
Preview of image 'part.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/2/2016 6:41 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 02/07/2016 18:00, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
>> On 2016-07-02 10:27 AM (-4), Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> Made in hgpovray so far.
>>>
>>> Might it make happy the original requester of such changes.
>>>
>>> The uv-mapping might have to be redesigned as distance is transforming a nearly
spherical blob into a long shaft.
>>> Or it might just stay like that.
>>>
>>
>> Looks like there are numerical artifacts near the top of the far right object.
>>
>
> Please enlighten me on that part of the picture (same picture rendered at 3200x1600,
cut in gimp to keep only the far right object)
>
> sturm is needed, but when present, I cannot see a problem.
>
I think that Cousin Ricky has younger eyes than you and me. ;)
I can see artefacts when I scale the image by 2
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ovus_png x 2.png' (130 KB)
Preview of image 'ovus_png x 2.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 02/07/2016 20:58, Stephen a écrit :
> On 7/2/2016 6:41 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 02/07/2016 18:00, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
>>>
>>> Looks like there are numerical artifacts near the top of the far right object.
>>>
>>
>> Please enlighten me on that part of the picture (same picture rendered at
3200x1600, cut in gimp to keep only the far right object)
>>
>> sturm is needed, but when present, I cannot see a problem.
>>
>
> I think that Cousin Ricky has younger eyes than you and me. ;)
> I can see artefacts when I scale the image by 2
>
Yep. I reduced the requested precision of the root-solving for that ovus part and that
should get ride of that noise.
Do you still see them ? (rendered at 6400x3200, no AA)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'part2.png' (59 KB)
Preview of image 'part2.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/3/2016 7:43 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 02/07/2016 20:58, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 7/2/2016 6:41 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> Le 02/07/2016 18:00, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Looks like there are numerical artifacts near the top of the far right object.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please enlighten me on that part of the picture (same picture rendered at
3200x1600, cut in gimp to keep only the far right object)
>>>
>>> sturm is needed, but when present, I cannot see a problem.
>>>
>>
>> I think that Cousin Ricky has younger eyes than you and me. ;)
>> I can see artefacts when I scale the image by 2
>>
>
> Yep. I reduced the requested precision of the root-solving for that ovus part and
that should get ride of that noise.
>
> Do you still see them ? (rendered at 6400x3200, no AA)
>
Sorry, even at four times magnification, I cannot. ;)
You have cracked it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 03/07/2016 09:32, Stephen a écrit :
> On 7/3/2016 7:43 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Yep. I reduced the requested precision of the root-solving for that ovus part and
that should get ride of that noise.
>>
>> Do you still see them ? (rendered at 6400x3200, no AA)
>>
>
> Sorry, even at four times magnification, I cannot. ;)
> You have cracked it.
>
Yes, but it has other side effect: creating illuminated line despite being in shadow
when cut, so I'm going to actually increase the requested precision. The radius of
7000 (for object of size 14) could be reduced to a radius of 700 without significant
visible effect.
Experimenting now with the uv-mapping. The naive usage of the normal does not seem
good for nearly flat section.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ovus.png' (209 KB)
Preview of image 'ovus.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 03/07/2016 11:42, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> Experimenting now with the uv-mapping. The naive usage of the normal does not seem
good for nearly flat section.
>
Reaching something for uv mapping of ovus (and as a bonus, cylinder & cone)
From left to right:
ovus, cylinder, cone x 2, lemon, ovus x 2
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'uv.png' (261 KB)
Preview of image 'uv.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] free fr> wrote:
> Yep. I reduced the requested precision of the root-solving for that ovus part and
that should get ride of that noise.
>
> Do you still see them ? (rendered at 6400x3200, no AA)
No. Looks fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
